Michael Lorrey [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>It shouldn't be on the radar screen as far as I know, as I was under the
>impression that Prof. John Cramer ( of the U of Wash. ), in a paper
>published in 1986, extended the implications of the Feynman interpretation
>of Quantum Dynamics (esp QCD) to prove that the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox
>is not a paradox at all
Yes, the Transactional Interpretation which someone else has already mentioned. AFAIR he uses the relativistic Schrodinger Equation, points out that it has two solutions -- one going forward in time and one back -- and the end result is that the cat is always either alive or dead, but the decision isn't made until you open the box.
We shouldn't be surprised that QM should be full of oddities when we're not using the relativistic version, and from the 'common sense' point of view you simply can't tell whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box. This interpretation seems to be a mathematical expression of that rather obvious point.
I honestly don't understand why such an important reinterpretation of QM isn't more widely known.